Primary conditions and criteria

Explanation: sustainable earning capacity refers to the long-term economic growth the Netherlands can generate on a structural basis, with a view to an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for the earth, and for current and future generations throughout the Netherlands. At the portfolio level, the committee considers whether there is a reasonable spread of investments across the Netherlands and whether the portfolio takes the interests of current and future generations into account. This assessment criterion is divided into 2 sub-criteria:

1.The extent of the potential contribution to structural economic growth in relation to the financial contribution from the National Growth Fund. For this sub-criterion, the committee takes the following aspects into account and assesses the extent to which a proposal:

• contributes to a structural increase in productivity;
• is relevant to markets with structural growth potential;
• enhances the innovative capacity of a sector or ecosystem;
• aligns with the comparative advantages of the Netherlands;
• yields widely applicable results;
• delivers future-proof results;
• makes use of the latest technological insights;
• makes use of the latest scientific insights.

2. The contribution to other social benefits and the degree of mitigation of negative social effects.

Explanation: to assess how realistic it is for a proposal to increase the sustainable earning capacity, the committee needs insights into the strategic substantiation of the proposal. The committee therefore wishes to gain insights into the objectives of the proposal and the problems that are solved by the proposal or the way in which the proposal contributes to a social transition. It also assesses the legitimacy and effectiveness of the proposed interventions, as well as how international alignment is guaranteed.
This assessment criterion is divided into the following sub-criteria:
1. The extent to which the problem definition is clearly substantiated. If relevant, the extent to which the proposal contributes to one or more social transitions is also taken into account here.

2. The extent to which the objective has been clearly formulated and is logically in alignment with the formulated problem definition.

3. Legitimacy:
•    the extent to which the presence of reasons that legitimise government interventions is convincingly argued;
•    the extent to which the requested subsidy is proportional to alternative forms of funding, including private funding and other public funding sources (in addition to national, European, and regional/local);
•    the extent to which it is convincingly argued that granting a subsidy is the appropriate method of government intervention compared to other policy alternatives and instruments, or the extent to which other forms of government intervention have been incorporated or described in the plan (pricing, laws, and regulations, etc.).
4. Effectiveness:
•    the extent to which implementation of the proposal contributes to solving the identified problem.
5. Efficiency:
•    the extent to which the proposed activities are required in order to achieve the specified goal;
•    the extent to which the proposed activities are carried out cost-effectively, at the lowest possible cost.
6. The extent to which the strategic context has been mapped, including the associated risks and uncertainties (e.g. around current laws and regulations) and the extent to which the proposal contains measures to mitigate these risks.

7. If relevant: the extent to which the proposal is positioned in a European and, where relevant, global context. This may also include the extent to which a proposal contributes to strategic independence at the European or national level.

8. If relevant, the extent to which a proposal makes a concrete contribution to increasing the long-term labour capacity and how this builds on existing training and other initiatives.
 

Explanation: the committee also assesses the quality of the plan and thus assesses how realistic it is for the plan to be implemented in such a way that the intended contribution to sustainable earning capacity is achieved.
This assessment criterion is divided into the following sub-criteria:
1. The extent to which activities have been elaborated in concrete terms.

2. The extent to which the manpower (both qualitative and quantitative) required for the implementation of the activities is realistic.

3. The extent to which the planning and phasing, including interim goals, milestones and performance indicators, have been elaborated. If relevant: if the plan contains a pilot approach, the lessons to be learned from this must be clearly described before initiatives are scaled up.

4. The extent to which the monitoring and evaluation policy has been elaborated.

5. The extent to which feasibility risks have been identified and mitigating measures have been formulated.

6. If relevant: the extent to which the proposal contains activities, a budget, and parties that ensure concrete economic and social applications.

7. If relevant: the extent to which the policy with regard to intellectual property has been elaborated and is appropriate to the nature and phase of the project.

8. The extent to which the proposal contains a substantiated budget with the elements specified in the submission form.

9. Co-financing:
•    the composition of the public and/or private co-financing and the extent to which its level is appropriate to the type of activity and phase;
•    the extent to which the public and/or private co-financing is sufficiently secure, whereby the co-financing can consist of a cash or in-kind contribution;
•    the extent to which related investments and commitments of the parties in connection with the co-financing are sufficient. 
 

Explanation: in addition to a good strategic substantiation and a good quality of the plan, it is also important to know which parties implement the plan. The committee examines the knowledge position and/or market leadership, experience, and whether the proposed collaboration is convincing with regard to achieving the objectives of the plan.
This assessment criterion is divided into the following sub-criteria:
1. The degree of expertise and implementation capacity of the parties involved. The experience and track record of the management will also be taken into account here.

2. The extent to which agreements between the participating parties on mutual cooperation, responsibilities, and powers have been established and result in effective cooperation.

3. The extent to which responsibilities and powers for different bodies have been described, and result in decisive and unambiguous management.

4. The degree of involvement and support from stakeholders required to make the proposal a success, e.g. regional and other authorities or other social stakeholders.

5. The extent to which use is made of existing (knowledge) infrastructure.

6. The extent to which the consortium is sufficiently open to innovative parties and (if relevant) foreign expertise, appropriate to the nature and phase of the project.